Residents Against Flooding (“RAF”), the only group with a citywide focus working to stop preventable flooding, invites you to a public informational meeting June 29th. Several attorneys will be present to speak and answer questions about Houston’s severe man-made flooding problem as well as provide information about RAF’s federal lawsuit against the City of Houston and Memorial City TIRZ 17.

Speakers include RAF Chairman, Ed Browne, an engineer, who will explain the goals of the organization in the federal lawsuit and the need for immediate action by the City. Attorneys scheduled to attend include prominent environmental attorney Jim Blackburn and RAF’s respected litigation team, Charles Irvine and Mary Conner of the Irvine & Conner Law Firm. Scheduled to speak on policy efforts will be Roger Gingell, an RAF board member and attorney with a legislative policy background.

Key differences between the White Oak Bayou and the RAF lawsuits

RESIDENTS AGAINST FLOODING:

WHITE OAK BAYOU PROPERTY OWNERS:

1. Lawsuit is against City of Houston AND Memorial City Redevelopment Authority, aka TIRZ 17

1. Lawsuit was against Harris County Flood Control

2. Federal lawsuit

2. State lawsuit

3. Suing for REMEDY to protect against future flooding, not for money

3. Sued for money for past flood damages

4. RAF contends flooding is result of lax building codes and irresponsible development, permitted by the City, without proper flood mitigation

4. Claimed that county government inaction resulted in flooding

5. If victorious, will not add any costs to the City of Houston budget. RAF is not asking for hand-outs, only that the public money already earmarked for this purpose be allocated for flooding mitigation projects

5. Would have cost county $85 million

6. If victorious, may result in a Special Master being assigned by the federal judge. That person will ensure that flood and drainage projects are carried out by the City within a timeline determined by the judge. Oversight would be maintained until the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ homes will receive adequate flood protection.

6. County would have been liable that its future operations could damage someone’s property